Page 1 of 1

Sam Harris - "10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheis

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:34 pm
by Swamper
Ok, I was wandering the internet, looking up stuff on objective morality and similar subjects, and I came across this. Is anyone interested in writing a rebuttal to this article (or at least pointing me to where I can find a rebuttal)?
10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism
By Sam Harris
SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."

December 24, 2006

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term "atheism" has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.

Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was "not at all to be tolerated" because, he said, "promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist."

That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims "never to doubt" the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.

Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:53 pm
by August
Wisdom from the kindergarten.

He is long on assertion, and short on arguing for his position.

Anyways, here is a rebuttal:
http://www.wscleary.com/pov/html/myths.html

Re: Sam Harris - "10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheis

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:00 pm
by SaintGeorge
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.
In the sense that most people define meaning, yes, atheists do indeed believe life is meaningless. There is no objective purpose to our existence. We have to create our own. Basically, this amounts to a wimpy man imagining himself as the strong man in a circus. Atheists often criticize religion as a creation of man, but under their philosophy, meaning is also fabricated. It's an illusion, or rather, a delusion, but a nice one to have.
On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave.


This is simply false. A lot of religions don't even believe in an after life. All religions agree that there is an objective meaning or purpose for the universe, outside of ourselves. It is also worthy to note that religious people usually only worry about life being meaningless when they are doubting their religion.
Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious.


Yes, their own life. Actually, I'm probably being a bit too hard on them. Well, on second thought, maybe not. Life in their view is only precious when it's condusive to pleasure. Once it drops below a certain quality level, the humane thing to do is kill it. Hence euthanasia, abortion, and other such controversial matters.
Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived.


Let me get this straight. Life has meaning because you say it does? That's begging the question. It's still meaningless, because there is no objective purpose for it. It's a matter of taste really. This is pure solipsism. You can't say we are mere accidents of random irrational processes and then conjure up a meaning for it all. Nothing we do in life will last. Even if we do benefit others, what will it matter? We won't exist to even know about most of it.
Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.
No, they aren't. According to your philosophy, we only form attachments to others in order to derive benefits for ourselves. They become mere objects to be used. It's all about physical (and emotional) pleasure. According to you, love is a mere chemical reaction of sorts. You can get the same thing from shots and drugs as you can from your girlfriend, in your opinion Mr. Harris.
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
Geez, this sure is awfully convenient. Every time an atheistic governmental regime screws up and kills people, you can just say, "well, they weren't really atheistic, but rather a political religion." What the heck is a political religion? I think Sam Harris is being very liberal with the definition of religion. You know, we could use this same strategy and say, "well, the guys who did the inquisition and crusades and stuff, they weren't really Christian, but rather they were only culturally Christian." You know, we should use this kind of double-think more often. Whenever somebody on your team screws up, just pretend they were never with you.

The crimes of the governments Mr. Harris mentions are due to atheistic beliefs, or unbelief if you want to call it that. I mean, the leaders kept journals for crying out loud, and they documented their motivations very well. You should read them some time.
3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs.
Face it. You are a religion. You are dogmatic. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Everyone is dogmatic. You can claim you're open to the supernatural all you want. You aren't. I've heard you say you reject it as a matter of principle before. Also, not all religions even believe in inerrant scriptures. Stop pidgeon-holing.
As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I love this guy! Can he use any more logical fallacies? Most Christians reject pagan gods not because they believe they don't exist, but because they are in fact demons and not gods. Also, most pagan gods are created, contingent beings, and the universe existed before them. They are the same thing as the "emergent" gods some atheists hope humans will become someday. Also, why does Stephen Henry Roberts not explain why the process of dismissing multiple gods is the same as dismissing a single God? Arguing whether there are many causes or one cause is very different from arguing that there are no causes. Indeed, some pagan religions did argue there are no causes. The gods arouse from primordial chaos in a purely naturalistic process. Their gods are not even eternal. They die, change, exist in time, etc... The real God is so very, very different. In Christianity, the word "God" even has a different meaning than it does in paganism. For pagans, gods are just really powerful creatures, hence their occasional worship of earthly rulers as gods.

Re: Sam Harris - "10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheis

Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:52 pm
by SaintGeorge
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.
Ummm...if there is no intelligence cause to anything, then it is in fact, well, random. In order for things not to be random, you must admit a transcendent first cause beyond spacetime that has an unchanging nature imparting a specific order and pattern onto the universe it spawns...is it just me, or does that sound mighty similar to God? Oh, and by the way, if something is only partially the product of chance, it's still the product of chance. After all, how could natural selection ever choose an attribute in a creature, unless the attribute first got there by random chance mutation? Also, what about the environment that does the selecting? If it was always meant to be the way it turns out to be, doesn't that lock us into determinism? The "random" genetic mutations are caused by nature.

Of course, I as a mathematician don't believe in random chance. Probablity is something we use when the equations get too complex. It's easier to approximate the frequency of events than predict them from their often amazingly complex causes.
5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.
This is false. The National Academy of Sciences chooses who gets in and who doesn't, at least according to my understanding. Obviously, they'll let in their own kind. Also, if science leads to atheism, we better amend our constitution or stop teaching science in public schools. The government cannot promote disbelief or belief. If science promotes disbelief, the government cannot promote science. Atheism is philosophy, not science. Most of the greatest scientists in the world believe in a God of some sorts. The atheism present in academia among the natural sciences is due to cultural and historical causes more than anything else.

A few atheists get into predominantly religious bodies of scientists.
The scientists religion and convictions tell them to support free speech and a variety of views.
The atheists only let in atheists.
The religious guys die off.
The atheists slowly move in as a popular movement, replacing the open positions.
Once an atheist gets the head position, it's all over. And the tolerance of the religious scientists allow them to do this.
From then on, new scientists work day in and day out in an atheistic environment. Atheism is pounded into them by conditioning and peer pressure.
They then tell religious people science leads to atheism, and set up a false conflict between science and faith.
This keeps religious people away, and ensures they soon become "ignorant."

A new elite class has slipped into power, indeed, a new aristocracy of sorsts, and we didn't even notice it. Now, they are securing their hold on power.
6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.
How do you "know" your wife loves you? Again, you assume we really don't know the origin of the universe and such because you already think there is no such thing as God or revelation to tell us. Besides, God tells us why and what, but usually not how. We know God created the universe and why He did it, but we don't know how He did it. You assume faith is a feeling or emotion of sorts, and is not based on evidence. Faith must have evidence behind it to be sound.

And yes, you are arrogant. Anyone can tell that from the tone of your books.
There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.
Can you prove to me the Civil War ocurred? You accept that it ocurred based on historical evidence. We accept the claims of Jesus based on overwhelming historical evidence, which you reject off-hand because you do not consider anything supernatural to be possible. If we relied solely on experience to authenticate things, we need to pitch out the whole subject of history. Spiritual experience confirms historical truth in Christianity.

I've run out of time to comment on the rest.

Re: Sam Harris - "10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheis

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:10 am
by Fortigurn
He starts off with the fallacy of the appeal to misery (well boohoo, go stand in the corner and cry).
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.
He provides no evidence that atheists value life more than theists. Nor does he provide any evidence that atheists commonly believe 'Life is imbued with meaning'. This post by an atheist on another forum actually identifies the issue which Harris has misunderstood:
I think there maybe a simple disconnect about what the expression "meaning of life" means.

I think the theist often takes "Meaning Of Life" (note caps) to mean "a mission assigned to me by god, which I am to discover, and attempt to carry out." In that sense, the atheist does not have a "Meaning Of Life".

When the atheist protests that his life does have meaning, he is not speaking of the same "Meaning Of Life" of which the theist is thinking, in which the "Meaning" is comprehended and intended by God. The atheist is thinking of a "meaning of life" (no caps) comprehended and intended by himself and other humans.
A good point.
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
He deals here with the easiest 'Atheism causes evil' argument, and actually fails to deal with the rest. The fact is that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are commonly raised by theists in order to counter atheist claims that theism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history, and that theism is the inevitable product of belief. Whilst it is true that such crimes are not the inevitable product of belief, it is also true to say that there is nothing inherent in atheism which is better able to prevent them taking place than theism (contrary to the common atheist argument).

And of course Harris tries the good old 'And-they-weren't-really-atheists-anyway' argument, which is clearly flawed. They were atheists, and the fact that they built up personality cults doesn't make them quasi-religious. He also tries to slip in a rabbit punch at the end, saying 'There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable', which is totally off topic. And of course, it depends on one's definition of 'reasonable'. The French Revolutionaries believed they were the most 'reasonable' society on earth, and yet they were responsible for the deaths of thousands of their own people.
3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
So in other words, atheism is dogmatic (note that he didn't even attempt to address this).

His comments on morality are also off base. It's all very well pointing the finger at slavery in the Bible (which actually isn't slavery as we think of it), but the fact is that if confronted with a list of 35 confirmed atheists from the 6th century BC to the 20th century AD, he would be able to find perhaps only 5 which raised any objection to slavery (and even then they would be from the 19th century onwards). I know, because I tried that once with an atheist, and that was the best he could do (he eventually withdrew from the discussion after he had been humiliated by the poor showing of historical atheism).

In contrast, Christianity can point to a long tradition of Biblically derived opposition to slavery, despite also having to acknowledge the many Christians who attempted to justify slavery on Biblical grounds.

Re: Sam Harris - "10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheis

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:26 pm
by godslanguage
"A few atheists get into predominantly religious bodies of scientists.
The scientists religion and convictions tell them to support free speech and a variety of views.
The atheists only let in atheists.
The religious guys die off.
The atheists slowly move in as a popular movement, replacing the open positions.
Once an atheist gets the head position, it's all over. And the tolerance of the religious scientists allow them to do this.
From then on, new scientists work day in and day out in an atheistic environment. Atheism is pounded into them by conditioning and peer pressure.
They then tell religious people science leads to atheism, and set up a false conflict between science and faith.
This keeps religious people away, and ensures they soon become "ignorant.""


I like this, this is exactly what is happening right now. Look at a respectable Astronomer; Gonzalez who was denied tenure at Iowa State University, after all the contributions he made in his field, and publishing books on ID and contributing to ID movement, the head figures of materialism made ends-meat out of Gonzalez, only to be denied tenure and promoted as an ignorant fool.

Re: Sam Harris - "10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheis

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:00 pm
by SaintGeorge
Look at a respectable Astronomer; Gonzalez who was denied tenure at Iowa State University, after all the contributions he made in his field, and publishing books on ID and contributing to ID movement, the head figures of materialism made ends-meat out of Gonzalez, only to be denied tenure and promoted as an ignorant fool.
Absolutely correct. Welcome to persecution. It shocks me that people seem to be surprised at it. After all, it's not like we weren't warned this would happened. Jesus Christ Himself told us it would happen. I suspect this is just the beginning. These will be "the good'Ol days" before long, trust me.